Revisiting the Anti-cancer Toxicity of Clinically Approved Platinating Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cisplatin (CDDP), carboplatin (CP), and oxaliplatin (OXP) are three platinating agents clinically approved worldwide for use against a variety of cancers. They are canonically known as DNA damage inducers; however, that is only one of their mechanisms of cytotoxicity. CDDP mediates its effects through DNA damage-induced transcription inhibition and apoptotic signalling. In addition, CDDP targets the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to induce ER-stress, the mitochondria via mitochondrial DNA damage leading to ROS production, and the plasma membrane and cytoskeletal components. CP acts in a similar fashion to CDDP by inducing DNA damage, mitochondrial damage, and ER stress. Additionally, CP is also able to upregulate micro-RNA activity, enhancing intrinsic apoptosis. OXP, on the other hand, at first induces damage to all the same targets as CDDP and CP, yet it is also capable of inducing immunogenic cell death via ER stress and can decrease ribosome biogenesis through its nucleolar effects. In this comprehensive review, we provide detailed mechanisms of action for the three platinating agents, going beyond their nuclear effects to include their cytoplasmic impact within cancer cells. In addition, we cover their current clinical use and limitations, including side effects and mechanisms of resistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".